memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Files for deletion
Duplicate phaser sweep ;Image:AntiChangelingPhaserDevice.JPG or Image:Phaser sweep.jpg One features Odo still as a plant, the other is Odo in mid-morph. Personally, I prefer mid-morph. But having both doesn't seem necessary. - AJ Halliwell 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) :I combined the two, Image:Phaser sweep finds Odo.jpg. But now that I think about it, maybe they should be separate, but both kept so that they can be included one right after the other. --Bp 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Aeroshuttle ;Image:Aeroshuttle.jpg This is a non-canon image. It seems to be a scanned image from the Star Trek Magazine, which as I understand it is not allowed. I remember that being the problem with previous image deletions, unfortunetly there seems to not be an archive of those discussions for me to reference. I also feel there is no reason for a non-canon image. We have canon ones (they may not be good, but they are canon). --OuroborosCobra talk 00:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC) :Uh, as far as I know there is no such thing as a "canon" image of the aeroshuttle. It never actually appeared in any episode (except for the external detailing on Voyager's hull that represented it's ventral side. I've got some good quality renders posted by Rob (Ron?) Bouchune made from the model he developed (just in case) while still at Foundation that he posted on the Starshipbuilder Forums awhile back if that will help... EDIT I just looked at the image and that is one OF those images (that RB posted), if I'm not mistaken. It's about as "canon" as you're going to get, I'm afraid...Capt Christopher Donovan 09:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)editedCapt Christopher Donovan 09:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think "as canon as you are going to get" is good enough, it either is canon or it isn't. Besides, there is Image:VOY partial MSD.jpg and Image:Aeroshuttle future tense.jpg. Granted, they are not as good, but they are actual canon shots, from on screen, and not from the Magazine. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC) :I'm going to respectfully disagree. This is the model they WOULD HAVE USED if they ever did an ep with the Aeroshuttle in it, the official Foundation Imagaing mesh. Just because they never used it doesn't make it any less official and canon in my mind. I feel also that this non-screen aired, but official image is a better depiction of the craft in question than some screen-aired but visually limited and uninformative partially seen schematic.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Actually, the biggest problem I have with this is that it is from the Star Trek: The Magazine. As past image deletion discussions have said (sadly they are not archived on MA, something I intend to propose they start doing), scans from the magazine do not seem to fall under "fair use". That is the primary reason I am nominating this here. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC) :After doing some checking, I find that that image is NOT an exact image from Rob's post at Hobbytalk.com after all...I apologize for the inconvenience. I amend my vote to DELETE, and will download from the other site an image that CAN be posted under "Fair Use".Capt Christopher Donovan 00:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC) I went searching through the change history for this page, and I found relevent discussions for images that were deleted just for being from a published source, namely Star Trek: The Magazine. I have "archived" these discussions in my user subpage at User:OuroborosCobra/PageII#Image Deletion Discussions. Please take a look. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC) * I still think it is a relevant background image, regardless if it made it into an episode footage or not. Additionally, Star Trek: Magazine had to get it from somewhere, so their acquisition and use of an image coming from a paramount source still falls under the same copyright rules as we use. --Alan del Beccio 15:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC) **The magazine did not "have to get them from somewhere". They could have been commissioned only for the magazine. If this was not the case, why were previous images deleted simply for being in the magazine (again, see User:OuroborosCobra/PageII#Image Deletion Discussions)? --OuroborosCobra talk 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Gerald Ford image Image:250px-Repub8a.jpg This image was taken from somewhere to represent Gerald Ford and it is stated on the image page that this is the "Original version of picture that was altered and used in the time stream in Storm Front Part II of Gerald Ford.'" I checked the timestream again, and Gerald Ford or the image are not in there, so I vote for Delete. --Jörg 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) *Crazy Ford, falling down all the time. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' if he wasn't there. Upon deletion of the image, the page will also be deleted as we have already voted it for deletion. - AJ Halliwell 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Image:Firing aft phasers.jpg We already have Image:Constitution class original engineering hull.jpg, which, besides obviously being better-named, contains no watermark, AND is much more clear as it shows most of the ship while the image nominated for deletion really only shows the aft part of the secondary hull. Ottens 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC) :KEEP'The purpose of the image is to illustrate the aft phasers of the secondary hull, not to showcase the hull itself. Note the placement of the picture in the article. It is superior, in my mind, to the image it replaced, because it more clearly shows the phaser banks themselves, and illustrates more clearly exactly where they are placed above the shuttlebay. :As for the watermark, I hadn't noticed it. If it's that big of a deal, then surely one of us could re-screencap the same image off of the DVD.Capt Christopher Donovan 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC) *'Keep. The old image was misnamed, and the new image does better showoff the phasers. This whole thing could have been avoided if the uploader of the new image had nominated the old image for deletion when he orphaned it, rather than leaving trash around for others to sort through. Now we have this mess. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) **Response to myself: Any negativeness in my tone is due to a lack of sleep, and I truly apologize if I have offended anyone. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC) *Response to Responce: Nah, I'm just making newbie mistakes because I'm pretty much still a newbie! We're cool! :) Capt Christopher Donovan 09:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Image:Qfrontal.jpg Not sure where this uncited image came from, but it shouldn't be used to replace a screencap in the Q article. Aside from be a possible copyright violation, it is seems rather inappropriate on a website based on a TV series.... --Alan del Beccio 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) :Looks like artwork from an album cover, or something. Either way, there are so many episodes with Q, we should be able to find a screencap of him. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) : Delete. It's a cover from a book — one I can't remember for the life of me. — THOR ''=/\='' 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) : Comment - The image is artwork from the novel I, Q. - Enzo Aquarius 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Image:Saucer2.jpg ;Image:Saucer2.jpg For one thing, this is a lower quality version of Image:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), ENT.jpg. It is bigger, but other than that, it is far worse. For another, we already had Image:Constitution class original saucer.jpg, which quite frankly IMO was fine, and did a better job of showing the saucer section. The new one doesn't even show the whole thing, part of it is off the edge. Even if we were to keep this, I do not see why this was uploaded as a seperate file, and not uploaded over the old filename. Instead the old filename was made into an orphan. If that is going to happen, I would think that the uploader of the new image should at least have put the old image up for deletion here, rather than leave an orphan image lying around. It's kinda like drinking a can of soda, and leaving it on the grass instead of putting it in the trash bin. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :First, a couple of Mea Culpa - I didn't realize there was a version of this image already available, and I didn't stop to think I needed to do something about the "old" image. My bad. I'm still learning the nuances of things like file uploading... :As for the image itself, it's tons better than the one it replaced, for sure. The original version of that pic was a weird pink/purple tinted thing, and when I got done cleaning it up as best I could, it just looked too washed out to keep. The new image is NOT "cut off", you can see the whole of the ship, with the emphasis on the saucer section, which is what the image is supposed to be showing. :For the record, I'm voting KEEP.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. The "saucer2" image is missing a lot in balance, it is really brightened and washed out, while the "1701 (ENT)" image is much crisper, shade-wise. The "original saucer" imge could use replacement, but with a better shot of the same frame, not another image from ENT *rolleyes* -- Captain M.K.B. 07:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :QUESTION Is your problem with the image the IMAGE, or that it's from "Enterprise"? (Guessing I know the answer...)Capt Christopher Donovan 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :I think we should be more even-handed than making all of our images from ENT or DS9 -- its not like TOS iamges are completely incomparable, some are fairly good quality when it comes to seeing dramatic treatments of the model... for the record, i still support keeping a version of the image from ENT: :: Image:Sacrifice of Angels 17.jpg ;Image:Sacrifice of Angels 17.jpg I really hope this is my last tonight. I swear I am not trying to be mean, I am just calling them as I see them. I like this image, I really do, but it was uploaded several hours ago, and then never put into any article. It either needs to be used, or it needs to go away. If you vote to keep it, please come up with a place for it first, don't just vote to keep because it looks so awesome. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC) : Perhaps you could have found a place for it yourself before posting it? That is typically a part of "being bold." However, it should be noted that portions of the image, I do believe, were used as part of the articles on the USS Majestic and USS Sitak. --Alan del Beccio 15:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)